RE: Status of new relation file naming

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Status of new relation file naming
Date: 2000-09-15 00:11:41
Message-ID: 000701c01ea9$85de0440$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikheev, Vadim [mailto:vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM]
>
> > > Rename... Why would we need in rename with OID filenames?
> >
> > Andreas seems to refer to in place replacement of OID files e.g.
> > using your *relink*.
>
> Sorry, I've messed things for myself.
>
> Ok. In short, I vote for UNIQUE_ID (unrelated to pg_class.oid) file names.
> I think that it's better to implement this (but neither OID nor
> OID.VERSION)
> right now
> because of this is like what we'll have in new smgr -
> tablespace_id.relation_file_node.
> Pg_class' OID is kind of logical things, totaly unrelated to the issue
> how/where to
> store relation file.
>
> Please comment ASAP.
>

Philip Warner mentioned about the advantage of random number.
It's exactly what I've wanted to say.

>> it removes the temptation to write utilities that rely on
>> the internal representation of our data.

It is preferable that file naming rule is encapsulated so that we
can change it without notice.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-09-15 00:16:00 RE: Status of new relation file naming
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-09-15 00:10:50 RE: Status of new relation file naming